Homicide continues to be the second leading cause of death for youth aged15-24, and the leading cause of death for African American youth, according the CDC. More than 700,000 young people aged 10 to 24 were treated in emergency departments in 2010 for injuries sustained due to violence.

While identifying risk factors for teen violence is a necessary component of combating the problem, the experts recognize that it’s also important to identify factors that protect youth against youth embracing violence — such as resilience, positive youth development and community assets. “Most youth, even those living in high risk situations, are not violent and more must be learned about the factors that are helping youth, protecting them from engaging in violent behavior so that others can benefit,” the experts wrote in the supplement.

The CDC convened the Expert Panel on Protective Factors for Youth Violence Perpetration to clarify unresolved definitional and analytic issues on protective factors; review the state of evidence regarding the factors that appropriately can be labeled as direct protective, buffering protective, or both; carry out new analyses of major longitudinal surveys of youth to discover new knowledge about protective factors; an assessing the implications of research identifying protective factors for prevention programs, policies, and future research. This supplement presents the group’s work on direct protective factors — in particular identifying factors that exhibit mostly direct protective effects.

For more information about youth violence in the United States, check out a number of resources available on the CDC’s violence prevention Web page.

The human papillomavirus vaccine was recommended for routine use in 11-12 year old girls in 2007. But by 2010, the most recent year for which data are available, less than half had received one dose of the three-dose series and fewer than a third had received all three. The inconvenience of the need for three separate office visits along with the vaccine’s price – about $130 per Gardasil dose, as of July 2011 – have certainly contributed to the low uptake.

Now, some parts of the world – including Mexico, Switzerland, and parts of Canada have moved to either a two-dose schedule, or a so-called “extended dose” schedule, in which the third dose is delayed until 5 years after the second one. (In the current U.S. three-dose schedule, doses two and three are given at 2 and 6 months, respectively, after dose one.)

No data on the efficacy of fewer than three doses have been published by either Merck or GlaxoSmithKline from their pivotal trials of Gardasil and Cervarix, respectively. But some other data are available for both vaccines. A nonrandomized study in Costa Rica that included more than 1,100 women who had received just one or two doses of Cervarix suggested that two doses or maybe even just one – could be as protective as three doses against infection at 4 years.

And in an as-yet unpublished study done in Canada, immune responses against both HPV 16 and 18 at 3 years were similar between two doses of Gardasil given at age 9-13 years and three doses given at age 16-26 years. But, there are limited efficacy data and no long-term data, Dr. Markowitz said.

Electron micrograph of human papillomavirus (HPV) / Courtesy of the National Cancer Institute

In an e-mail, Deb Wambold of Merck Vaccines said that, while the company does support studies of alternative dosing schedules for HPV vaccination including two-dose regimens, so far those studies are “interesting preliminary explorations in select subpopulations of vaccinees,” and “It is important to note that there are no data on the clinical efficacy or durability of effectiveness with two doses of either of the HPV vaccines, as we have for the recommended three-dose vaccination regimen.”

Dr. Joseph A. Bocchini Jr., who chairs the ACIP HPV vaccine working group, concurred. In an interview at the ACIP meeting, he noted that the long-term efficacy of two doses is “worth looking at,” as is the varying of three-dose schedules. “But, at this point, there are too few data to apply this to recommendations in the United States.”

More data from ongoing trials will be available in the next few years, Dr. Markowitz said.

The current U.S. influenza seasonal epidemic, the mildest in years, is in its death throes, based on infection trends over the past several weeks, including the most recent data released on May 11 by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

During the week that ended on May 5, 13.7% of U.S. respiratory surveillance specimens tested positive for influenza, continuing the clear downhill slope of U.S, flu cases since this season’s U.S. epidemic peaked at 30% positive during the week of March 11-17. The CDC hasn’t yet declared the current, 2011-2012 flu-season’s epidemic, which started in late February, officially over—it can’t until the influenza-positive rate falls back below 10%–but the epidemic curve’s steep downward track (see graphic) is as well defined as the far side of L’Alpe d’Huez.

graphic courtesy of the CDC

With the current influenza epidemic nearly ended, the season’s numbers paint a decidedly benign picture. So far, 22 children have died from influenza; if that figure continues to grow as it has so far it will top out as the lowest since the CDC began collecting these data in 2004.

Other markers of how mild the 2011-2012 season has been include the number of U.S. patients hospitalized for influenza, which sits below past seasons, and the proportion of deaths attributable to pneumonia or influenza has hovered below the epidemic threshold for that measure all season.

During a winter and spring where the influenza world focused on mammalian-transmissible H5N1 flu, strains dubbed by some the “doomsday” virus, having such a mild seasonal flu season tossed at us can’t help but be seen as some ironic, natural-world prank. On a purely rationale basis, year-to-year variations in seasonal flu have nothing whatsoever to do with the looming danger from H5N1 flu, but with this infectious-disease juxtaposition I can’t help but imagine that somewhere, off in the distance, I hear a quiet, cosmic chortle.

Foreign-made skin-lightening creams, found to contain toxic levels of mercury, are poisoning users as well as the people they live with, according to a report from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

The CDC identified a Mexican-made cream as the likely source of mercury exposure in 22 people in 5 households in California and Virginia. While previous cases have shows similar levels of mercury exposure from skin-lightening creams, this is the first instance where exposure has been measured in non-users, CDC said. The non-labeled creams contained 2%-5.7% mercury.

Among the sample, 15 people ages 8 months to 67 years had elevated urinary mercury concentrations (9 users and 6 non-users). Non-users were exposed to the mercury through contact with cream users or with contaminated household items, the CDC said. Younger children, compared to older children, had much higher concentrations.

While 15 people had elevated mercury levels, only 6 (all users) exhibited symptoms of mercury exposure. Users of the skin-lightening creams said they had used it as an acne treatment, for skin-lightening, and to fade freckles.

Although mercury-containing creams are banned by the Food and Drug Administration, high levels of mercury have been found in foreign-made skin-lightening creams across the country, including Chicago, New York, Minnesota, and Baltimore.

In 2010, an FDA spokesperson told the Chicago Tribune that with fewer than 500 inspectors dedicated to reviewing imports, banned items often get through anyway. The FDA could not comment before press time.

The CDC advises clinicians who recognize mercury toxicity to consider mercury-containing creams as a possible cause, even for children. Consult a medical toxicologist before beginning treatment, CDC advises.

In a move last month that apparently took at least two device manufacturers completely by surprise, one center of the Food and Drug Administration recommended against an intended use of their products, despite the products’ approval and licensure by another FDA center.

PharmaJet's Stratis is used to vaccinate a Cambodian child against measles. Photo courtesy of Heather Potters.

Recent jet injector models, including Bioject’s ZetaJet and Biojector 2000 and PharmaJet’s Stratis, were approved and licensed by the FDA’s Center for Devices and Radiological Health (CDRH) as needle-free alternatives for injecting vaccines and injectable medications. Both companies had been marketing their devices for influenza immunization in the current flu season.

On October 26th, the FDA’s Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research (CBER) issued a notice advising healthcare professionals that inactivated influenza vaccines should be administered only with a sterile needle and syringe. The reason: “Safety and effectiveness information that would support labeling inactivated influenza vaccines for delivery by jet injector have not been submitted to FDA.” However, CBER said, individuals who have already received a flu vaccine with a jet injector do not need to be revaccinated.

Currently, only the measles-mumps-rubella vaccine is approved and specifically labeled for administration by jet injector.

So what’s the concern with influenza vaccine? “A jet injector subjects the vaccine to a different pressure than it would receive during administration by sterile needle and syringe and as a result the effectiveness and the safety profile of the injected vaccine may be altered,” according to the CBER document.

Evidently this information had not been previously communicated to the manufacturers. “We were provided no notice by FDA of any concerns about Jet Injectors or FDA’s statement. To our knowledge, no other needle-free injection manufacturer received notice or an opportunity to discuss this matter with FDA,” PharmaJet said in a statement.

Bioject’s President and CEO Ralph Makar was similarly taken aback by the FDA notice. “The FDA communication on the use of jet injectors with influenza vaccines was surprising given that Bioject’s Needle-Free Injection Devices…are both FDA 510(k) cleared with indications for use that describe their use in delivery of subcutaneous or intramuscular injections of vaccines and other injectable drugs,” he said in a statement.

In a public comment at the October meeting of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices, PharmaJet Inc’s chairman Heather Potters said, “Last year we scaled up to provide several hundred thousand syringes, and this season we were expecting to sell several million. Now, our domestic sales have virtually stopped, except for [investigational trials].”

The companies are expected to meet with the FDA in early January to work this out. According to Mr. Makar, “We are looking into the matter to better understand the situation and the FDA’s concerns. A number of Bioject’s Needle-Free Injection devices have been on the market for many years and we are committed to resolving this matter with the FDA in a timely manner.”

For the fifth year in a row, the number of smoking scenes in major youth-rated movies has declined, according to a report by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. In addition, the percentage of top-grossing movies with no tobacco incidents were the highest in 2010 compared with the last 20 years.

The report, Smoking in Top-Grossing Movies – United States 2010, showed that the number of onscreen tobacco incidents in youth-rated movies (G, PG, or PG-13) dropped from 2,093 in 2005 to 595 in 2010. That’s almost a 72% decrease.

That’s the good news.

The bad news is that one in five high school students still smoke and “there’s still a substantial amount of smoking in youth-related films,” said Stanton A. Glantz, Ph.D., one of the study authors and director of Smoke Free Movies, in a news conference.

Several studies have indicated that smoking in movies increases the odds smoking initiation among youth.

Physicians ought to be educating parents that this is a real problem and that they should not let their youth watch movies that have smoking in them, said Dr. Glantz in a phone interview. His Web site lists the smoking status of top-grossing movies every week.

The report is also the first to look at the impact of policy. Three of the six major studios which have adopted a smoking-reduction policies between 2004 and 2007 had lowered their on-screen smoking incidents much more than those studios with no policy in place.

“The data find that three major movie studios (Comcast/Universal, Disney and Time Warner/Warner Bros.) have almost eliminated tobacco from their youth-rated movies, reducing the number of tobacco incidents per film (G/PG/PG13) by 96 percent. In contrast, studios without policies as well as independent companies (News Corporation/Twentieth Century Fox, Sony/Columbia/Screen Gems and Viacom/Paramount) reduced tobacco depictions in youth-rated movies by an average of only 42 percent over the same period,” according to a news release by the Legacy for Longer Healthier Lives, which hosted a news conference following the report’s release.

The authors admit that implementation of policy won’t affect youths exposure to older movies and that youths do watch R-rated movies, but they recommend several solutions.

They suggest anti-tobacco ads before the movies that have smoking scenes. They also recommend expanding the R rating to include movies with smoking as one way to reduce adolescent exposure to on-screen smoking.

“And if you want to get politically involved,” said Dr. Glantz, “work with your state to stop subsidizing movies with smoking in them.” Almost all states offer movie producers subsidies in the form of tax credit or cash rebates to attract movie production to their states, according to the CDC report. “The 15 states subsidizing top-grossing movies with tobacco incidents spent more on these productions in 2010 ($288 million) than they budgeted for their state tobacco-control programs in 2011 ($280 million),” the authors write.

The authors used data from the Thumbs Up! Thumbs Down! project, which counts occurrences of tobacco incidents in U.S. top-grossing movies each year, to update their 2010 report.

Parents don’t need another reason to worry about vaccinating their children. That was the general view during a discussion of febrile seizures at the June meeting of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices.

ACIP’s general recommendations working group has a subgroup dedicated to febrile seizures. One job of this subgroup is to review data on what is known about the incidence of febrile seizures associated with various childhood vaccines alone or in combination. The bottom line: the working group decided to recommend that ACIP NOT make a recommendation about vaccination and febrile seizures.

courtesy of flickr user hartland martin (creative commons)

Several presentations included data showing that febrile seizures are neither unusual nor significantly associated with vaccinations. Dr. Andrew Kroger of the CDC acknowledged that data are limited, especially data on the risk/benefit ratios of simultaneous vaccinations and febrile seizures.

“How much risk of influenza and invasive pneumococcal disease are we willing to take with delayed vaccination, in order to prevent the occurrence of febrile seizures?” Dr. Kroger asked.

Ultimately, the working group decided that, for now at least, the issue was “best addressed through messaging,” rather than voting. A majority of the working group recommended that providers should simply inform parents of the increased risk of febrile seizures with concomitant vaccinations but not recommend any delay of vaccination because of it.

This option seemed to go over well during the discussion period.

“The worst thing we could do is send a message that delaying vaccinations is preferable to preventing febrile seizures,” Dr. Michael Brady, representing the American Academy of Pediatrics, said during the discussion period.

courtesy of flickr user Jimee, Jackie, Tom & Asha (creative commons)

Dr. Doug Campos-Outcalt, representing the American Academy of Family Physicians, agreed. “It’s important to consider febrile seizure numbers in the context of the disease,” he said.

ACIP member Dr. Janet Englund noted that “for ACIP to mandate discussion of febrile seizures during a visit would be harmful to the [vaccination] process.”

In fact, some data suggest that vaccination has a protective effect on febrile seizures, and such data could be useful when collected over the long term, said Dr. Jeff Duchin, chair of the general recommendations working group.

Hmm. Something else to encourage childhood vaccination. That sounds like a good message.